What are the negative effects of funding natural disasters?

Question

In need of information for a debate concerning economical issues, etc. So far we have come up with two arguments. :(

Answer 1

natural disaster funding can be seen as a money waste to many countries as you can never tell when you definitely need the protection, because you cant put dates on natural disasters, such as earthquakes.

Answer 2

The way I see it, natural disaster relief is charity, there is no economic issue.

The question is how do you get the destroyed area rebuilt? How did San Francisco rebuild after their earthquake in 1907? How did Germany and Japan get rebuilt after WWII? How is Eastern Europe being modernized after the disasterous spell with communism? How is Viet Nam rebuilding? Locally, how is Mississippi rebuilding verses New Orleans?

Investment by private industry and the people themselves rebuilding their lives.........not waiting for some government to give them handouts.

Answer 3

There is a fundamental (unwritten) law called "the law of unintended consequences". One of the unintended consequences of bailing out citizens from Mother Nature's wrath is that we then rebuild in the same spot that was destroyed. Whereas our ancestors would have said, "My, my, we live under a volcano that buried half of our village. Let's move farther away." Funding relief allows victims to ignore the basest instincts of mankind.

The other consequence is obvious: it is very expensive. And with the expense comes greed, corruption, graft, waste and theft. I've heard estimates ranging from 10% to 50% of the federal monies spent so far have gone, not to the victims, but to the wily and dishonest.

Good Luck to you...